"I believe what I've been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good."

Posted by Jeff Emanuel (Diary)

Despite strident opposition from supporters who maintain that Rick Santorum is a true conservative in the mold of  you guessed it  Ronald Reagan, the already huge mountain of evidence that he is, at heart, a big-government conservative continues to grow. As Erick noted previously, in 2008 Santorum said:

This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I dont think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldnt get involved in the bedroom, we shouldnt get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals cant go it alone.

Now, consider these two quotes from Santorums 2005 book It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good, both of which are very telling:

What was my vision? I came to the uncomfortable realization that conservatives were not only reluctant to spend government dollars on the poor, they hadnt even thought much about what might work better. I often describe my conservative colleagues during this time as simply cheap liberals. My own economically modest personal background and my faith had taught me to care for those who are less fortunate, but I too had not yet given much thought to the proper role of government in this mission.

-Preface, p. IX; audio here

And:

I suspect some will dismiss my ideas as just an extended version of compassionate conservatism. Some will reject what I have said as a kind of Big Government Conservatism. Some will say that what Ive tried to argue isnt conservatism at all. But I believe what Ive been presenting is the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned. One that fosters the opportunity for all Americans to live as we are called to live, in selfless families that contribute to the general welfare, the common good.

-Conclusion, p. 421; audio here

Though the second quote is the money shot, as it were, the value of the first is that it sets the stage for Santorums exploration of the role of government in the book. As the second quote demonstrates, Santorum has not only concluded that it is the role of government to ensure that all Americans contribute to the general welfare, the common good by acting as the chief arbiter of charitable resources and their distribution.

This is wrong on several levels. While there is absolutely a role for government in creating and maintaining a social safety net (Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.) for the population that cannot take care of itself (whether that should take place at the federal, state, or local level, and in what measure each, is a different discussion), Santorums instinct appears to be to use government to expand that safety net to all who may be in need or want of charity. Further, he accuses conservatives in Congress who disagree with a significantly expanded role of government in enforcing redistributive charity and welfare of being cheap liberals who havent though [enough] about the issue of the poor to recognize that making decisions about charity is clearly governments job to do.

Not only does Santorum argue for an expansion of the welfare state as the proper way to ensure that all Americans contribute to the general welfare, and not only does he dismiss criticisms that his view represents an extended version of compassionate conservatism or big government conservatism, but he actually claims that increasing the size and scope of government, and its role in growing the welfare state, represents the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned.

Im not criticizing Rick Santorum for being concerned about his fellow man. However, instinctively turning to government to cure all that ails our society and individuals within it  and calling that a conservative instinct  shows a lack of understanding about the role of government itself within our society. Further, his belief that only government is able (and benevolent enough) to ensure that all Americans contribute to the general welfare in an acceptable manner reveals a lack of faith in, and understanding of, conservatism and conservative Americans. Were he to step outside of his more-government-is-the-solution bubble, he would learn, for example, that conservative Americans voluntarily contribute to the common good by donating to private charities at a very high rate  much higher than liberals who, like Santorum, look to an ever-expanding government to take care of the poor using Americans tax dollars.

Santorum certainly isnt unique within the community of current and former lawmakers in his faith that government has the answers and the moral requirement to make fiscal decisions (including where charitable contributions are to be made, and in what amounts) for the American people as a whole. However, denying that such a belief is big government conservatism (if it is conservatism at all) is only surpassed on the absurdity scale by the claim that such a belief truly represents the genuine conservatism our Founders envisioned.

There is a Marxist/ Liberation theological strand in the Catholic church which I once considered to be more of a fringe element but have notice their rhetoric to have seeped into what many consider main stream in recent years.

The excerpts of Sen. Santorums writings include the phraseology and philosophy espoused by this element. It is taught in theology classes at Catholic universities and, in fact, permeates the curriculum across all disciplines at some of these institutions. Invited speakers and authors who decry American values, rail against the pursuit of happiness, foster class antagonism in the name of social and economic justice are celebrated and their ideas are often advanced in the form of common reader , cross curriculum assignments.

Seemingly benign and overflowing with pathos and compassion for the less fortunate, parishioners, idealistic college students and many in the general population find the words noble and readily embrace what they perceive to be moral social teaching in the spirit of Catholic identity.

I heard it when Newt described how he would deal with illegal aliens who had resided in this country for some period of time and I recognize the strains in Sen. Santorums words quoted above. Some are calling it big government conservatism. I have come to the conclusion that the rhetoric is more like a gateway drug to socialist-progressivism.

Be very, very, very careful. This is not the stuff that was in your grandmothers catechism.

Socialism is the morally corrupt belief that we each can (and must) live off of the income and wealth of others. Christians should know how this violates at least trhee of the Ten Commandments: lies, coveting and theft. But recall that socialists themselves love to scold the rest of us about “sustainability”, yet as Margaret Thatcher once quipped, socialism works until they run out of other people’s money.

So, the dirty secret about socialism is that in the long run, it is not economically “sustainable”, and is in fact built to fail. Sadly, socialists not only think they have the right to seize the income and asset of others, many of whom they have never met, they don’t stop there. To read Keyenes or Marx is to read the plans and proposals of someone who assumes the right to own, control and in the end, to even wholely consume the personhood of others. It is a sociopathology so vast in scope, that it is only restrained by how many humans it can place under its insatiable grasp.

Socialism is evil, plain and simple. Those who advocate socialsm are advocates and supporters of evil. They are our our enemies and are a threat to our lives and our prosperity.

The economist Ludwig von Mises showed in 1920 [1,2] that since a socialist economy destroys price information via government intrusion, the myriad of participants in the economy are unable to make a fully rational calculation about true profit and loss. Any economic activity that operates at a loss cannot be sustainable, a concept the left loves to scold us about, yet cannot really grasp.

Taking another approach, the Nobel economist F.A. Hayek showed that a national economy had such an immense myriad of dynamic economic relationships that no single committee or bureaurcracy, no matter how smart or how well staffed, could possibly know enough to direct prices or production levels. His Nobel Lecture [3] was entitled The Pretence of Knowledge. Hayek had previously used this idea as the basis for a very thorough article [4] on the subject, The Use of Knowledge in Society.

When these two different withering critiques of socialism are combined, it is easy to see that not only is it dangrously foolish to think that economic decisions can successfully be made by government, but that competing bureaucracies will invariably react to the consequences of intrusions in the marketplace by each other. It would be like trying to control the height of waves on a lake by measuring them from the back of a boat circling in its own wake.

I'm probably going to end up with Newt because, if nothing else, I believe he can pull off, out from under those dropped eyes, more machine gun attack on the zero and his failed and commie administration than anyone else.

I think Newt knows where a lot of keys to a lot of closets are and knows the combination to more than a few locks.

America needs someone that will do more than lead, we need also someone that will be, in the blue collar world, a pusher that gets things done.

There's still time before the election, and I am not bored with what is happening before our historical eyes.

6
posted on 01/12/2012 5:10:19 AM PST
by knarf
(I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)

The category of spirit is: the individual. The animal aspect is: the number.Christianity is spirit, it relates accordingly to the category of spirit.To work for Christianity with the help, and the direction, of number therefore means translating spirit into the animal aspect.Yet this is the drift of all Christendom's efforts. What is despicable is this mendacity which makes it out to be Christian zeal, lets it be applauded and extolled as such, the more one can get together to work, as they call it, for Christianity - while the effect is exactly to attenuate and abolish Christianity. The common man cannot see this; but those scoundrels, the trader clergy, they should be able to see this much.

Nicely tailored hit piece. Do you suppose that the left specifically targeted Santorum in PA because he was another big spender and big government advocate?

No, of course not.

What, then, is the meaning of the mish-mash of quotes rendered here?

Well, let us recall the Founders idea of self-interest eventually raising the standard of living for all. Certainly, that's a conservative ideal? Using nicely clipped quotes, I would imagine I could subvert that notion into something like: ‘a governments role...should foster...individual...contribution to the whole.’ I mean, this kind of boiler plate distortion is just what lefties have used to distort the general welfare clause into the entire welfare system. Something the Founders, BTW, could not even imagine on any scale of their time. It goes without saying that it is also anathema to their other codes and principles.

What Santorum is arguing, IMO, is that it is in the gub’mints interest to foster (real two parent) families (Duh, that's a Western concept, no?) so that in the fullness of time they, in fact, will better everyone in the physical, moral and social sense. It goes without saying (should, anyway) that the opposite has been going on for a long, long time and the result of the gub’mint Daddy model is crime, disorder, immorality, disease and decay of our national order. In short, by not supporting the family (no, not with welfare checks but with the creed of our founding ideals) we are surely killing ourselves. Nowhere in this screed is Santorum advocating an expanded welfare system to spend billions more and bring about more of the same disorder and decay.

It is the governments role to foster the values that contribute to freedom and liberty - chiefly through upholding those values in the laws and institutions of our land. Those values are Judeo-Christian. Those values used to be common sense. These days, all bets are off and the gub’mint, in fact, makes war on all these things. Santorum is not arguing for more of the same. He is simply arguing for a return to the essential basis for a strong and free society; that is, a return to strong and free families.

My $0.02

13
posted on 01/12/2012 5:24:03 AM PST
by WorkingClassFilth
(Soon to be a man without a country.)

With respect to the words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

Oh, we’re guaranteed plenty of that. We’ve got a form of “government anarchy” right now, to use a contradiction in terms.

The intervening time between socialism-on-credit and the withdrawal of credit will not be fun. Without grown-ups in charge it will be deadly for many. It’s clear that the crew we’ve got from the GOP are not the grown-ups necessary to navigate these waters. Too bad.

The problem here is that we should care for our fellow man, but it should not be the responsibility of the government to care for the less fortunate.

Taking money from one person under threat of punishment and giving it to another is theft, regardless if it is the local street hood or the government. Some once said that he would rather be robbed than have his money taken by the government, since the robber would leave and not talk about all the great things that would be done with his money.

The truth is if the government was less intrusive, there would be more generosity by those who work, as they would have more to give. Yes, some would be greedy and not give at all, but why is that a government issue?

But the government and the poor don't like this. The government doesn't like it because private charity reduces government influence. The poor don't like it because private charities are more discerning in their giving, and many will require the poor to better themselves.

16
posted on 01/12/2012 5:28:01 AM PST
by kosciusko51
(Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)

Is Santorum this “Big Government Conservative” we’ve been reading about, or is he the guy that wants to bring immediate cuts to Social Security and put grandma out on the street like what was reported last week? You can’t have it both ways here.

If the gub’mint simply went back to its corner (and we had a Judeo-Christian culture) it would fall on the people to provide for one another. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if people are not doing that today, then they’re blind, wicked or stupid. Care for one another is as small as cooking a little extra for the elderly or shut-in down the block or across the road. Bringing people extra garden produce. Taking somebody to town for an appointment. Noting the grief, needs and lonliness of those around you and acting on those needs. Giving money where your conscience leads. Etc., etc., etc.

20
posted on 01/12/2012 5:34:55 AM PST
by WorkingClassFilth
(Soon to be a man without a country.)

If you understand that Santorum is a Catholic conservative, his stances make sense. I'm not saying this as a knock on Catholics. But there is a brand of Catholic conservatism which is very conservative on social issue but which believes the state has an obligation to help the poor and working class. That is Santorum to a tee. I admire him and voted for him in Pennsylvania when he was a senator but he really is a Bush / Huckabee “Compassionate Conservative.”

He also is well connected to the lobbyist community — Rick is no “outsider.” People who put there hopes into him as some true conservative outsider are going to be very disappointed.

26
posted on 01/12/2012 5:46:35 AM PST
by Opinionated Blowhard
("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")

What Santorum is arguing, IMO, is that it is in the gubmints interest to foster (real two parent) families (Duh, that's a Western concept, no?) so that in the fullness of time they, in fact, will better everyone in the physical, moral and social sense.

I have a problem with these kinds of arguments in the context of candidates for national offices because they just make sweeping generailzations about "what the government should do" without specifiying or taking into account which government we're talking about.

We are a republic. That means there is a system of defined spheres of authority divided between the State and national governments.

It's fine to think that government in general should be taking care of the poor, but if it is to be done it needs to be done by the state governments. There is no enumrated power of the national government that empowers them to do that.

29
posted on 01/12/2012 5:49:17 AM PST
by tacticalogic
("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)

Wrong, there was a perfect candidate out there. Name was Herman Cain. The left was mortified of his popularity and honest. So they found a few bimbos willing to lie and exaggerate any fact on his behavior.

Newt has to be the nominee if Cain doesn’t return, period. This Santorum is no better than Obama if he leans socialist. As for Romney, he makes me puke. I’ll have to carry a pail to the polls to vote for him so I can puke on the way out.

31
posted on 01/12/2012 5:50:00 AM PST
by sevinufnine
(Sevin - "If we do not fight when we know we can win, we'll have to fight when we know we will lose")

Exactly the AstroTurf these Romney bits are peddling is not
Even logically anymore
First the concerned freak that Rick is stripping away
Medicare or SS now he is evil for not doing it.
They have run out of smears do they make
It up.

Thanks. Unfortunatley, I believe that even if Mr. Santorum is somebody’s VP pick, we’re still going to lose (see my tagline). Using a conservative to bolster a weakling ticket is a tired and unprofitable tactic. No, scratch that. Using a conservative in this way is nothing more than baiting the trap with an attractive scent so that we’ll all be trapped and killed.

In this election, far too many conservatives will be willing to go down that road and, as a result, we’ll likely see another BO term. If, and I do mean if, the country can be saved after that, it will be far more open to men and women of principle and direct action than the weak and vaccilating are now - “conservatives” included. Any candidate who is chiefly electable is nothing more than an empty husk that mirrors the fears and greed of an unprinciple electorate.

We are in deep, deep waters and principles - even unpopular and unelectable ones - are exactly the prescription needed to save the Republic.

My $0.02

40
posted on 01/12/2012 5:59:07 AM PST
by WorkingClassFilth
(Soon to be a man without a country.)

What ?
All of these options are well connected to Lobbyists ?
Perry and Newt are lobbyist pals .
The other options are worthless .
Why are we destroying the only conservatives left in this post with alot
Of half truths , lies etccccc from a blogger with an
Agenda and who is loose with the facts ?

This plays directly into the Left’s hands. Divide the conservative vote 3 or 4 ways while the conservatives continue to search for the “perfect” candidate (there isn’t one, and never has been), Romney is the only one left standing, Obama waltzes to a second term. Game, set, and match.

43
posted on 01/12/2012 6:01:57 AM PST
by Campion
("It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Franklin)

I don’t think he’s advocating ‘care’ in the sense of more welfare checks at all. For the life of me I cannot envision Santorum expanding welfare - ever. He might go soft on the status quo (and not one of the others would be diffent) but his ideals are far different than giving more power to the loving arms of a godless federal gub’mint.

The Federal government, in it’s proper role, should expand liberty by upholding and fostering the very principles at the base of the Tree of Liberty - that is, strong and free families. A very Western tradition. Upholding those ideas, in this age, need be nothing more than getting gub’mint out of those areas it shouldn’t be and upholding the laws and institutions that foster traditional families

I agree with you, however, that handing out welfare money ought to be a state right.

46
posted on 01/12/2012 6:07:10 AM PST
by WorkingClassFilth
(Soon to be a man without a country.)

Santorum has not been vetted and has not been attacked by Romney and Paul. We all know it is so the vote is split. Anyone who thinks Santorum will be able to stand up to Romney as a viable alternative is dreaming, not to mention the general population won't go for him.

Either Perry and Santorum get behind Newt or it's a done deal for Romney, and Romney will NOT beat Obama.

48
posted on 01/12/2012 6:12:20 AM PST
by LuvFreeRepublic
( (I am angry and that is why I am #withNewt))

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.